In 1864, John A. Macdonald's reflections on the federal system were central to the formation of Canadian Confederation. Macdonald, the leading architect of the federal structure, envisioned a strong national government that would unite the provinces while maintaining regional autonomy. He understood the necessity of balancing these two competing interests—particularly the needs of Quebec and Ontario—by creating a system where the federal government would control matters of national importance, such as defense, trade, and immigration, while provinces retained authority over local matters like education, civil law, and health.
Macdonald’s embrace of a federal system was largely driven by his desire to avoid the mistakes made by the United States, whose federal structure had been weakened by states' rights disputes, culminating in the American Civil War. For Macdonald, the Canadian federal government needed to have sufficient power to maintain national unity, while preventing any one province from dominating the political landscape. His approach aimed at fostering both unity and diversity—especially between French and English Canada, as well as the Maritime provinces.
The cornerstone of Macdonald's federal vision was the division of powers outlined in Sections 91 and 92 of the British North America Act, which would emerge from these early discussions. These sections would define the roles of federal and provincial governments, ensuring that the central government could enact policies of national scope, while allowing provinces to protect their own cultures and interests. This was especially critical in Quebec, where Macdonald sought to assure French Canadians that their civil law, language, and Catholic institutions would be preserved within the larger framework of a united Canada.
Macdonald’s federal system also reflected his concern for the economic and geographic cohesion of the country. He believed that a strong central government was necessary for the construction of national infrastructure, particularly the transcontinental railway that would later bind the eastern provinces to the vast, resource-rich western territories. Economic integration, bolstered by a national government that could direct resources and policy toward collective goals, was key to Macdonald’s vision of a prosperous and united Canada.
While Macdonald championed federalism, he also recognized the tensions inherent in balancing regional interests with national unity. His vision required the provinces to cooperate in the larger national project while maintaining their distinctiveness. This delicate balance would shape Canadian politics for generations, with ongoing debates about the division of powers and the role of the federal government continuing into the present.
Macdonald’s commitment to federalism was not only a practical solution to the political gridlock of the time but also a visionary approach to governance. By establishing a federal system that could accommodate diverse linguistic, cultural, and regional interests, Macdonald laid the groundwork for a stable and enduring Canadian state. His role in crafting this system, through the lens of the Charlottetown and Quebec Conferences, helped to define the nation’s constitutional identity and set Canada on a path toward peaceful growth and expansion.
In conclusion, John A. Macdonald’s thoughts on the federal system in 1864 were transformative in shaping Canada’s future. His vision of a strong national government, balanced with provincial autonomy, has remained at the core of Canadian federalism. The system he helped design allowed Canada to grow into a cohesive nation that could accommodate regional diversity, withstand external pressures, and expand westward while maintaining a stable and functioning government. His ideas laid the foundation for Canadian Confederation, and the legacy of his federal system continues to influence the country’s political evolution to this day.
[excerpts from the Confederation Debates]
...Now, as regards the comparative advantages of a Legislative and a Federal Union, I have never hesitated to state my own opinions. I have again and again stated in the House, that, if practicable, I thought a Legislative Union would be preferable. (Hear, hear.) I have always contended that if we could agree to have one government and one parliament, legislating for the whole of these peoples, it would be the best, the cheapest, the most vigorous, and the strongest system of government we could adopt. (Hear, hear.) But, on looking at the subject in the Conference, and discussing the matter as we did, most unreservedly, and with a desire to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion, we found that such a system was impracticable. In the first place, it would not meet the assent of the people of Lower Canada, because they felt that in their peculiar position -- being in a minority, with a different language, nationality and religion from the majority, -- in case of a junction with the other provinces, their institutions and their laws might be assailed, and their ancestral associations, on which they prided themselves, attacked and prejudiced; it was found that any proposition which involved the absorption of the individuality of Lower Canada -- if I may use the expression-- would not be received with favour by her people. We found too, that though their people speak the same language and enjoy the same system of law as the people of Upper Canada, a system founded on the common law of England, there was as great a disinclination on the part of the various Maritime Provinces to lose their individuality, as separate political organizations, as we observed in the case of Lower Canada herself. (Hear, hear). Therefore, we were forced to the conclusion that we must either abandon the idea of Union altogether, or devise a system of union in which the separate provincial organizations would be in some degree preserved....
...The Conference having come to the conclusion that a legislative union, pure and simple, was impracticable, our next attempt was to form a government upon federal principles, which would give to the General Government the strength of a legislative and administrative union, while at the same time it preserved that liberty of action for the different sections which is allowed by a Federal Union. And I am strong in the belief -- that we have hit upon the happy medium in those resolutions, and that we have formed a scheme of government which unites the advantages of both, giving us the strength of a legislative union and the sectional freedom of a federal union, with protection to local interests. In doing so we had the advantage of the Experience of the United States....
We can now take advantage of the Experience of the last seventy-eight years, during which that Constitution has existed, and I am strongly of the belief that we have, in a great measure, avoided in this system which we propose for the adoption of the people of Canada, the defects which time and events have shown to exist in the American Constitution.... Ever since the union was formed the difficulty of what is called "State Rights" has existed, and this had much to do in bringing on the present unhappy war in the United States. They commenced, in fact, at the wrong end. They declared by their Constitution that each state was a sovereignty in itself, and that all the powers incident to a sovereignty belonged to each state, except those powers which, by the Constitution, were conferred upon the General Government and Congress. Here we have adopted a different system. We have strengthened the General Government. We have given the General Legislature all the great subjects of legislation. We have conferred on them, not only specifically and in detail, all the powers which are incident to sovereignty, but we have expressly declared that all subjects of general interest not distinctly and exclusively conferred upon the local governments and local legislatures, shall be conferred upon the General Government and Legislature. -- We have thus avoided that great source of weakness which has been the cause of the disruption of the United States. We have avoided all conflict of jurisdiction and authority, and if this Constitution is carried out,...we will have in fact, as I said before, all the advantages of a legislative union under one administration, with, at the same time, the guarantees for local institutions and for local laws, which are insisted upon by so many in the provinces now, I hope, to be united....
...any honourable member on examining the list of different subjects which are to be assigned to the General and Local Legislatures respectively, will see that all the great questions which affect the general interests of the Confederacy as a whole, are confided to the Federal parliament, while the local interests and local laws of each section are preserved intact, and entrusted to the care of the local bodies. As a matter of course, the General Parliament must have the power of dealing with the public debt and property of the Confederation. Of course, too, it must have the regulation of trade and commerce, of customs and excise. The Federal Parliament must have the sovereign power of raising money from such sources and by such means as the representatives of the people will allow. It will be seen that the local legislatures have the control of all local works; and it is a matter of great importance, and one of the chief advantages of the Federal Union and of local legislatures, that each province will have the power and means of developing its own resources and aiding its own progress after its own fashion and in its own way. Therefore all the local improvements, all local enterprises or undertakings of any kind, have been left to the care and management of the local legislatures of each province. (Cheers.)....
...With respect to the local governments, it is provided that each shall be governed by a chief executive officer, who shall be nominated by the General Government. As this is to be one united province, with the local governments and legislatures subordinate to the General Government and Legislature, it is obvious that the chief executive officer in each of the provinces must be subordinate as well. The General Government assumes towards the local governments precisely the same position as the Imperial Government holds with respect to each of the colonies now; so that as the Lieutenant Governor of each of the different provinces is now appointed directly by the Queen, and is directly responsible, and reports directly to Her, so will the executives of the local governments hereafter be subordinate to the Representative of the Queen, and be responsible and report to him....
...In conclusion, I would again implore the House not to let this opportunity pass. It is an opportunity that may never recur. At the risk of repeating myself, I would say, it was only by a happy concurrence of circumstances, that we were enabled to bring this great question to its present position. If we do not take advantage of the time, if we show ourselves unequal to the occasion, it may never return, and we shall hereafter bitterly and unavailingly regret having failed to embrace the happy opportunity now offered of founding a great nation under the fostering care of Great Britain, and our Sovereign Lady, Queen Victoria.
(Loud cheers, amidst which the honourable gentleman resumed his seat).
Cite Article : www.canadahistory.com/sections/documents
Source: